Citylink Center v. City of Cincinnati, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2007)

{¶ 35} I disagree with the majority's holding because the proposed uses of the property by CityLink establish that it is a community service facility, which is not a permitted use in an MG district. CityLink spends a substantial amount of time arguing around this unequivocal fact by citing parts of the zoning code out of context. I believe that, in concluding that CityLink was not a community service facility, the trial court substituted its judgment for that of the ZBA, and I would, therefore, reverse the trial court's judgment.

{¶ 36} It is true that courts must strictly construe zoning…